Once again, the Times Union asks whether we need the Thruway Authority. This question has been raised before. And, after careful consideration, the answer has always been "yes."
The Aug. 5 editorial, "A modest hike? Not by a mile," suggests that turning Thruway operations over to the state Department of Transportation may save money.
In fact, turning Thruway operations over to DOT would only result in diminished maintenance and capital construction on the Thruway.
If the Thruway Authority were eliminated, DOT would not have an extra dollar to put to highway maintenance. All funds for Thruway maintenance and operations would come not from toll funds but from tax dollars, which are the same tax dollars that operate and maintain all other state highways.
Through the years, the Thruway has operated with a higher level of maintenance because it has the dedicated funds. If the Thruway were placed under DOT, maintenance would decrease on the Thruway and on all state highways because the funding pie would be divided into even smaller pieces.
The Thruway Authority's ongoing operation of the canal system should be the real question.
When the canals were turned over to the Thruway in 1988, it was because the state was broke and did not have the money to operate and maintain this important, recreational, environmental and transportation system.
The canals must be maintained and operated, but they should no longer be a burden on Thruway toll payers. If this financial burden were lifted and the state reassumed its responsibility for the system, there would be little need for the Thruway to increase tolls to the extent proposed.
GERALD DELUCA
Ravena